Skip to main content
Glama
Preeti325

MCP Calendar Tools

by Preeti325
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: one reads/queries events while the other creates new ones. There is no ambiguity between them, and each has a single unambiguous responsibility.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_schedule, create_event), using snake_case throughout. Minor inconsistency exists in noun phrasing (schedule vs event) but the pattern is otherwise predictable and readable.

    Tool Count2/5

    Two tools feels very thin for a calendar server. A calendar domain typically warrants at least update/delete operations and date-range queries, making this extremely sparse for its apparent purpose.

    Completeness1/5

    The surface is severely incomplete. It covers only retrieving events for a single date and creating an event, but lacks update_event, delete_event, list_all_events, searching by range, and any management capabilities. This severely limits what agents can accomplish.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether events overwrite conflicts, whether validation is applied, whether creation is reversible, or what the return/confirmation looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    A single concise sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately front-loaded. The only criticism is that it could be slightly more expanded to cover behavioral details, but as a purely concise statement it's efficient.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling (get_schedule) that implies read/write pairing, the description should offer more. Critical gaps: no mention of what happens on date conflicts, no return value description, no statement about whether this is a state-changing operation with side effects. The tool is simple (4 params, no nesting), but it's a write operation with zero behavioral disclosure.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 4 parameters are already described in the schema. The description 'Create a new event' adds no distinct semantic value beyond what the schema encodes. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description states 'Create a new event in the local calendar' with a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling get_schedule by being a write operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate its role. The purpose is clear but minimal.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance on when to use this tool vs get_schedule, or when not to use it. There's no mention of prerequisites, format expectations for dates beyond what the schema shows, or any exclusions. The sibling distinction is implicit (create vs read) but never stated.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior3/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this reads from the 'local calendar' but doesn't disclose return format, whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), pagination, or locale/timezone handling. It's adequate but not rich.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    A single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. The description efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and highlights the key date-based scoping without redundancy.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a single-parameter read/list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It lacks additional context like return format or timezone considerations, but given the tool's simplicity and the exhaustive schema, these are minor gaps.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% for the single date parameter, including format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default (today). The description reinforces the parameter's role by stating events are for 'a specific date', adding modest value beyond the schema. Default-to-today behavior is a useful nuance.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all events') and scope ('for a specific date from the local calendar'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling create_event tool by focusing on reading/listing rather than creation.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description conveys that it reads local calendar events by date, which implicitly distinguishes it from create_event (the only sibling). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or provide exclusions/edge conditions.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-calendar MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-calendar MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Preeti325/mcp-calendar'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server